Table 3.
Outcomes
| Authors | Follow-up | RT | Aesthetic Outcomes | Functional Outcomes (Shoulder Morbidity) | Patient Satisfaction | Complications | Donor Site Morbidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamdi et al,18 2004 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 partial necrosis | 1 wound dehiscence |
| Ortiz et al,23 2007 | — | — | Satisfactory in all cases | — | — | 1 hematoma | Any complication |
| Hamdi et al,24 2008 | 19.4 (6–45) | All pts | — | LD strength and thickness of the anterior border of the LD: statistically comparable values between operated and unoperated sidesShoulder mobility: statistically comparable range of motion between operated and unoperated sides in most of the different movementsSignificant decreases in active and passive forward elevation and passive abduction of the operated shoulder compared with the unoperated side | — | — | — |
| Hamdi et al,25 2008 | — | All pts | — | — | — | 1 major flap necrosis (immediate) debridement + second flap surgery2 partial flap loss | 1 wound dehiscenceSeroma formation in all cases of MS type II flaps but in none of the TDAP or MS type I flaps |
| Yang et al,26 2012 | 10.3 (4–21) | 93.3% postoperative3.8% preoperative | 5-point Likert scaleMean aesthetic score (3 plastic surgeons) = 4.08LD flap and TDAP flap had higher scores than the others local flaps | — | Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes SurveyGeneral satisfaction: 85%Aesthetic satisfaction: 75% | 0 | 0 |
| Kijima et al,27 2013 | 11 (1–23) | 26.6% (4 pts) | Cosmetic scale (Japanese Breast Cancer Society)Excellent: 4/11Good: 7/11Control group Excellent or Good: 5/13Poor: 8/13 | — | — | 1 wound healing delay due to a partial flow disorder | Any complication |
| Lee et al,28 2014 | 11.3 (4–23) | — | KNUH breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (5-point Likert scale)Mean score (3 plastic surgeons): 4.13 | — | KNUH breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire 81.3% satisfactory results | 0 | 0 |
| Jacobs et al,29 2015 | 15.2 (0.3–38.2) | (16 pts previous RT) | Satisfactory results 100% of cases | Very low morbidity | — | — | 0 |
| Kim et al,30 2017 | 25.2 ± 8.69 | All pts | Physician satisfaction:Excellent: 7 casesGood: 5 cases | — | Patient satisfactionExcellent: 7 casesGood: 4 cases | 7 patients2 wound disruptions that required major revision4 linear necrosis healed secondarily1 fat necrosis required additional treatment | 0 |
| Amin et al,31 2017 | — | All pts | 5-point Likert scaleExcellent: 2Good: 23Fair poor: 12Very poor: 3 | Subjective assessment: average time patients needed to regain full range of motion of their shoulder joints after operation → 10 days (range 7–16) | 5-point Likert scaleExcellent: 4Good: 28Fair poor: 6Very por: 2 | 8 patients1 hematoma2 minor wound infection (dressings)4 flap congestion: reversible in 3 patients within 48 h; progressed to superficial sloughing in 1 patient | Any complication |
| Youssif et al,32 2019 | 24.8 (9–52) | All pts | Satisfactory | No reported cases of shoulder muscle power deficit | Patient questionnaire survey: overall satisfaction reached 94% | 1 fat necrosis | Any complication 1 scar revision for excess skin at the axillary fold in 1 patient |
| Abdelrahman et al,33 2019 | 12 | All pts | Satisfactory results including “excellent” and “good” outcomes group A: 80.9%; group B: 76.2%; No significantly difference | Shoulder Pain And Disability IndexGroup B: significantly less shoulder disability compared with group A (P < 0.001). | Excellent: 6Good: 10Fair: 3Poor: 2Bad: 0 | 1 hematoma1 infection2 wound dehiscence, partial flap loss | 1 seroma |